• OkCurve436@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can argue Chelsea benefitted from one lucky handball decision and a miskick cross, but otherwise didn’t create that much. While Arsenal didn’t do that much either, we did dominate possession. That said I thought we passed the ball around a lot in midfield, not the final third

    • Spiritual_Hat_7229@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was exactly this. We dominated the game but didn’t control it. Field tilt is probably the best representation of a team’s performance hence why City have ranked top of it pretty much every season of the last 5 years. It’s a good thing that we pretty much always win this because it means we are better than the opposition every game.

      • RespectnConnect@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uhm, you dominated possession(which Chelsea allowed you to)but not the game.

        Also, any objective person knows Chelsea was the better team in this game, and Field tilt without context is borderline useless

    • JabInTheButt@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah exactly. I do think game state is doing something for us here… Behind for 60 minutes, they had little incentive to open up and go attacking. That said they were broadly “on top” for long periods and did very little. I don’t rate them in the slightest (but we were very poor).

    • StrikeTeamOmega@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also somewhat amusing that we scored our second right in their strongest period of the whole game according to this.

  • sourneck@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The narrative around this game has been skewed massively by what the expectations were, the fact that it was at Stanford bridge, and how the commentators talked about it. We did not get dominated, nor did we dominate them. The openings that we created were so much better, though our final ball was lacking. Odegaard could’ve had 2 easy goals in the first half if the simple cutback to him had been played.

  • sbaks0820@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    but touches in whose third?

    does the red mean arsenal’s touches in chelsea’s third or all touches in arsenal’s third?

    • Ar_Ma@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think they looked more threatening when they broke and we were scampering back a lot specially zinchenko. We had very good control over the game but no threat.

      • racksacky@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They had a lot of those penalty area touches in the first 15. I think it was 12-2 around then, so we led 15-12 after.

    • rnkjnf@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah especially since if we go by this stat then Chelsea were only dominating more when we were scoring so this doesn’t make any sense at all

      • youngcoco@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We didn’t have a single shot on target in the first half. Field tilt is a useless stat unless you’re getting in the penalty box/getting shots on target, which we weren’t doing.

  • Kensei400@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the same Chelsea that had 65% possession against Liverpool. I sometimes lament that our reputation has outpaced us, that teams fear us much more compared to how good our players are.

      • Kensei400@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes but now they don’t come out to play against us, and we are not yet as good as City or Liverpool in attack.

  • lemonlixks@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of people are saying they saw it differently but honestly I felt this way about what I saw. I am surprised it’s quite this contrasting but otherwise I maintain that Chelsea were not as good as people are giving them credit for, but I suppose viewer bias and subjectivity is hard to truly measure.

  • rnkjnf@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think there’s really any point in stats like this, we all saw the game and we were good enough in the last 15 mins to save a draw from a pretty shit display

    No shame in it it was a great comeback but there’s no point in trying to make out like we were secretly dominating

  • ExxKonvict@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is there a heat map/touch map of Arsenal in Chelski’s final third? Because I feel like most of this field tilt is probably on the wings.

    We barely had any enjoy centrally since they were very compact and defensive, hence why why it looked like we didn’t have much control in the midfield despite having higher possession. This is where possession stat can sometimes be misleading.

  • CackleberryOmelettes@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This lines up with what I saw. While I don’t think we played great, I absolutely don’t agree that we were terrible, which seems to be the prevailing opinion online.

    We were poor… by our standards. We were sloppy and didn’t have a cutting edge, but we still dictated the terms of play. For a bunch of other teams that aren’t Arsenal that would be considered a good performance.

  • hikingbeginner@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t mean anything let’s be honest.

    They were better than us until we got our goal from a Sanchez error.

    • imGnarly@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree they out played us, their two goals were both very lucky. The pen was an accidental handball after a header that was not on goal. Then a shit cross that ended in the net.

    • ndenoon@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We had the only goal that wasn’t a weird fluke, if that’s how we’re evaluating things.

      • hikingbeginner@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how I’m evaluating things either.

        Their penalty wasn’t a weird fluke either come on, if we had that going against us we’d be going livid. It’s a clear pen.

        I just think they were better than us until Rice scored. We were so poor and they were really good.

        So happy we ended up getting a point and got out of there.

        Our performances need to improve, can’t wait for Tuesday hoping we get back on track performance and result wise

        COYG

        • ndenoon@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a clear pen but not a player mistake – just bad luck it hits an arm. It was a pretty even match on the balance of play. We were better at controlling territory; they had moments of danger but ultimately not that many in transitions.

  • Cantmakeaspell@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who cares. We don’t create much of anything. Don’t even try unless it’s perfect like we are playing for stats. In a super wet game there are bound to be mistakes and we still didn’t whip it in or take low hard shots from anywhere.

  • OscarMyk@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think there’s times in recent games that we’ve ended up with too many players forward, and in turn that means the defenders tend to play it back and make the safe pass. We’re seeing fewer triangles being created on the pitch, Odegaard isn’t getting as close to Saka and Martinelli often ends up isolated on the left.

    It’s great that Saliba and Gabriel are comfortable on the ball but I feel the midfield leaves far too much build up to them.